ALERT: Playshare Partners

[mojo]

My adobe is corrupt. Would someone mind posting the pdf or an html link or pm me?

Thanks!

Although, judging from the comments, I don't think I want to know.

 

[mojo]

Got it TY.

Just a few observations to start.

1. Acknowledged at gpwa back in '08. I have no recollection of it. AGD picked it up. Playshare did not explain it in detail and it was not understood. Playshare did not state it was 'retroactive'. I did not see a statement to affiliates explaining everything like we are seeing now. Instead, PS relied on AGD to explain and now would like to shift the blame.

2. This term is retroactive. Stating 'We can change terms whenever we want ... " does not give a free get out of jail card. Retroactive Terms are unacceptable. If PSP feels the need to change, going forward for new affiliates is acceptable. PSP is alienating the existing affiliate base which make very little business sense. Looking at this from an affilaite prospective, is there a Grand Prive scenerio looming? Do we really want to wait to find out?

3. PSP chose to wait SIX months to address my questions. If PSP was so confident in it's actions, why was this statement not made straight away? Instead, it was left to fester and is now a serious infection in the trust PSP has gained over the years. The complete disregard and lack of respect in answering any questions on this over the past several months to affiliates speaks volumns on what PSP REALLY thinks of affiliates. The disdain is palpable.

4. To try to shift the blame to AGD is typical 'the best defense is offense' mentality. This is now just the beginning. I imagine there will next be rogue discussions. It's PSP choice to continue on this destructive path or do what other programs are doing and retracting the retroactive nature.

5. I don't know if there is a better business bearou for affiliate programs but the term 'no negitive carryover' on your website is DECEPTIVE MARKETING.
I did NOT get paid for my other players on the FIRST month.

That's all I can say for now but it's been six months for me. I forsee another six months because this really is showing a lack of caring for your affiliate partners PSP.

 

[bonusgeek]

I wish these programs would stop trying to justify theft because times are bad . Times are bad for affiliates too, we all have expenses as well so thats all relative. But a bad economy does not give anyone the license to steal or change a contract to whatever they deem is fair. Whats the damn point in having a contract if programs can do whatever they want to with it to suit them? Times are bad and I think I am going to have a tough time paying my bills this month, so I would like to change the contract to give me 80% commission from now on so my business can do better. It sounds pretty ridiculous when its put like that but this is exactly what you programs changing the contract are trying to justify to affiliates.

Like inspiration pointed out, there are a lot of ways to go about sustaining your bottom line or increasing your business from affiliates. A candid email asking for a little help or better exposure in these rough times would have probably gone a long way with affiliates. Instead programs want to go the brilliant route of pushing affiliates away while giving themselves a blackeye in the industry that will never go away. How programs think this is going to save them or make them more money is beyond me.

So far there is only one program that comes to mind in these recent tough times that actaully used their damn head and thats focal click. Instead of giving us a bunch of reasons to take their brands down by stealing from us or changing their terms to whatever suits them, they would rather give us reasons to push them harder like dumping the no negative carry over and offering more incentives. That reminds me I need to write that down to do more with them.

One thing is certain, this industry isn't going anywhere and online gambling will probably be legal in the usa sometime in the near future. It just blows my mind sitting here on the sidelines when I see programs putting a gun to their own head. All I can say is good luck to you, I think your going to need it a year or two down the road when this comes back to bite you in a big way. Ever heard of the big picture?

 

[bonustreak]

I am sadly disappointed to say the least I had hopes that PS had affiliates best interest in mind here but it clearly isn't the case. I will have to seriously think about what to do as far as marketing your brands in the future. This document is more insulting then it is enlightening and the scenarios played out are total BS. I think you guys need to ask the bean counters and analyzers to get back to work and show the true results please and show that the casino is the winner here all around! If you were really sincere about this change a mailer would have went out when it was snuck in the back door behind our backs and the only reason your annoyed now is because you were caught plan and simple.

Still these are retro active changes and we cannot accept them or else many others will follow suit for sure!

 

[Engineer]

When this clause was first introduced, I didn't realize that it would be applied retroactively to existing players. I don't think anyone did.

I can understand the financial issues, but PSP really should do the right thing and honor the original T&Cs, even if that puts the company in a slightly less than desirable financial position for a while.

If PSP would simply apply the high roller policy to new affiliates only -- like Roxy Affiliates is doing with their high roller policy -- then I think most people would be happy. PSP wouldn't be breaching any contracts, current affiliate partners wouldn't feel like they had been slapped in the face, and we could all get back to work.

Is this something PSP is willing to consider?

 

[mojo]

If PSP would simply apply the high roller policy to new affiliates only -- like Roxy Affiliates is doing with their high roller policy -- then I think most people would be happy. PSP wouldn't be breaching any contracts, existing affiliates wouldn't feel like they had been slapped in the face, and we could all get back to work.

That's really it in a nutshell Engineer. Roxy deserves huge kudos for their understanding and willingness to work with affiliates. Affiliates tend to want to respond by offering more exposure.

Playshare, you messed up on this one. It's simple to fix as Engineer has expressed. This is making us all tense and I daresay you are not getting the full benefit of affiliates promoting you as more and more banners come down.

I think we are all exhausted from this so I plead one more time to reconsider PSP!

 

[dominique]

In short:

Playshare totally misses the point in the document.

The point is that it is a breach of contract.

Breach of contract is not acceptable, period.

Where would we all be if no one honored their contracts?

To change a contract both parties have to be in agreement.

The details of the breach are not really relevant.

New contracts going forward are perfectly fine

 

[mojo]

Our terms have always contained the clause stating that “PlayShare Partners reserves the right to amend,
alter, delete or add to any of the provisions of this Agreement, at any time and at its sole discretion,
without advance notice to you”. Although comments about this statement’s validity have been made on
5
various forums recently, we have never received a complaint or query about it. Nevertheless, we will be
happy to commit to informing affiliates of any future changes to the terms and conditions via e-mail and
the PSP website.

I'm not a lawyer, just a paralegal. Below is a case example which shows this item is arguable in a court of law. Not that I would persue that or do I know all the legalities here but the blanket statement above is arguable at best. JMO and I am not a lawyer.

Originally Posted by Dominique
To change a contract both parties have to be in agreement.

Agree and that is the foundation of a contract IMO.

Ninth Circuit: Without Notice Customer Not Bound by Changes in Internet Contract
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in Douglas v. Talk America, Inc. which vacates an order compelling arbitration pursuant to an Internet contract. The plaintiff, Joe Douglas, contracted for long distance telephone service with America Online. This business was subsequently acquired by the defendant, Talk America, who added four provisions to Douglas’s existing service contract; one of these new provisions was an arbitration clause. Though Talk America posted the revised contract on its website, it never notified Douglas that the contract had changed. Unaware of the new contract provisions, Douglas continued to use Talk America’s services for four years.

When Douglas filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Talk America moved to compel arbitration based on the modified contract. The district court granted the motion and Douglas sought review of that decision.

On review, the Ninth Circuit relied upon well-settled contract law principles. No express contract can be formed without the assent of the party to be bound. It follows, then, that a party cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract; the consent of the other party is required. Talk America could not hold Douglas to a contractual provision of which he had no actual notice, even though the revised contract was posted on Talk America’s website.

This case reinforces the fact that traditional contract principles apply even to Internet contracts. To form an enforceable Internet contract, a website user must be required to take some affirmative action indicating his assent to the terms of the contract. Whenever the terms of the contract change, the website user should be notified of the change and be required to take an additional affirmative action indicating his assent to the revised terms. Otherwise, the party seeking to enforce the Internet contract may have difficulty demonstrating which version of the contract, if any, governs the rights and obligations of the parties.

E-Commerce Law: Ninth Circuit: Without Notice Customer Not Bound by Changes in Internet Contract

 

[Guard Dog]

I wish I had a 'Nominate Post' feature here

GREAT post and example Mojo.

 

[GamTrak]

Kudos on an excellent post mojo! Thanks for displaying what is basic common sense to the average person! ;D

 

[mojo]

TY.

There seems to be an increase in interest in this area as online time goes by and more of the online contracts are being challenged.

To be more on point regarding the blanket statement seen in PSP in other contracts, below is Harris v. Blockbuster Inc. (there is a pdf link within). It appears that adding 'we can chage the terms anytime.." jeopardizes the terms of service altogether.

From looking around there is also International Law and Juristiction challenges but all in all more are coming up these days and quite doable.

Again, NOT a lawyer hear and this is merely research.

If you look at many online terms of service, they reserve the right to change the terms at any time. Some force you to re-agree to the terms -- but others don't. In the past, courts have ruled that if someone didn't agree to the changed terms, the new terms could be found to be unenforceable, but a recent decision has gone much further, effectively saying that the entire terms of service are void if they claim they can be changed at any time. Sent in by Blake, the ruling said that Blockbuster's online terms of service were "illusory" and unenforceable because it included a clause saying it could change the terms at any time. So, even though the term it was trying to enforce was in the terms that the person agreed to, the court found the entire terms unenforceable. This is quite a ruling that could have a pretty major impact on any online service that has terms that insist they can change at any time. While it's just a district court ruling and may be reversed on appeal, it's something anyone running an online service should pay attention to.

Court Rejects Online Terms Of Service That Reserve The Right To Change At Any Time | Techdirt

 

[Engineer]

It looks like we're getting the silent treatment again. Nice.

 

[GamTrak]

It may be that it's kind of 'useless' to argue with logic and what is IMO right! I certainly don't envy anyone that has to do that. I'm sure the ONE making these decisions is sheilded from the wrath that has been brought on by these actions.

It looks like we're getting the silent treatment again. Nice.

 

[triple777s]

I have one question i would like to ask all my affiliate peers.

I have brought this up at our place and have had some good and bad responses, but i will not change my way of thinking on this.

I honestly believe the only way we are going to have any effect on this casino groups who are coming out of the wood work now and changing their terms with us, [just because they can] is if there software provider takes a stance.

I am starting to shift my blame on this situation to Microgaming themselves and this is why.

When a casino starts using a specific software program they must enter into some kind of contractual agreement. {not to use the software illegally or for unintended purposes, or in a way in which it would harm their company or reputation]....and these casinos that are treating their partners [us] in an unprofessional manner in which we are in turn black listing them and their software is in fact harming microgaming's reputation. I believe that Microgaming needs to step up to the plate and shut down these casinos, penalize them, or sue them for breach of their contract! And the "good" microgaming casino's need to also get on the ball and start complaining to microgaming itself that these rogue or black listed casinos are hurting their reputation and it needs to be stopped asap!

If Microgaming would actual start to take responsibilty for their "bad children" we could actually get something accomplished.

 

[bonustreak]

Hey guys let's cut Lawrence a break he has been home with his sick kids all week and will be back on Monday to post an update etc.

 

[Engineer]

Ah, I didn't know... Hope the kids will be better soon.

 

[mojo]

It looks like we're getting the silent treatment again. Nice.

Guaranteed we won't get a response this week from anyone at Playshare. If we are worthy, maybe after the conference.

Hope I am proved wrong. ???

 

[Lawrence]

Hi everyone,

I appreciate that you are awaiting some kind of response from me here - a response I said I would make - but I have had a crazy past week and ask that you continue to be patient. I will make a posting in the very near future.

Thanks,
Lawrence.

 

[Herd]

It appears that adding 'we can chage the terms anytime.." jeopardizes the terms of service altogether.

From looking around there is also International Law and Juristiction challenges but all in all more are coming up these days and quite doable.

Great post, but I think it reinforces the fact, don't put all your eggs, or most of your eggs in one basket. Unlike poker, most casino advertisers (other then forums) dont know who their players are - which makes it harder to move players from one casino to another casino when a programs makes such changes.

 

[mojo]

some kind of response .

Lawrence,

Some kind of response. I reckon some kind of response is better than none. Nothing new to me. I brought this up SIX months ago with no response from you but I'm still here. I'll still be here six months from now.

Bonustreak: Hey guys let's cut Lawrence a break he has been home with his sick kids all week

Sorry to hear that. I hope they are feeling better. My child is sick too. However, my child is sick quite often.

Lets cut mojo and EVERYONE else here a break and answer this question striaght up finally! What is the major malfunction here?

Does this term stand retroactively?

Yes, or no. (!)

Please answer and let us get on with our businesses and our lives. Either way many of us here will then know how to preceed with playshare. This doesnt go away and it cannot be avoided.

Meanwhile, I hope everyones plans for Budapest are going well.